Cardinal Mahony asked to stay home and not join the conclave

From the Washington Post

No copyright infringement intended.

Just a simple blog post.

Duh!


***

VATICAN CITY — The controversy over Cardinal Roger Mahony’s vote in the conclave that will elect a new pope has now reached the Vatican, [uh-oh!] with at least one cardinal musing aloud that the former archbishop of Los Angeles should consider staying home.  [he'd better be!]

Mahony, who led the nation’s largest archdiocese from 1985 to 2011, has been accused of hiding sexual abuse by priests and was recently sidelined by current Archbishop Jose Gomez.  [Last I read, he'd be asked to appear in court!]

Gomez announced that Mahony would no longer have any “administrative or public duties” after a court-ordered release of 14,000 pages of internal church records showed Mahony and others actively tried to shield abusive priests from prosecution. Gomez called the records “brutal and painful reading.”  [Oh yeah, they were.  I read some of them.  Very graphic of how these predators attacked their helpless victims.  FYI, there was a nun!]

Nonetheless, the 76-year old cardinal remains a bishop” in good standing” and retains the right to vote for the future pope until he reaches age 80. Gomez has since said he supports Mahony’s vote in the conclave. [Hope, Pope Benedict XVI strips him of his red hat!]

On Monday (Feb. 18) Italy’s main weekly, the Catholic magazine Famiglia Cristiana, put the so-called “Mahony affair” on the home page of its website, quoting the petition by left-leaning group Catholic United calling the prelate to “stay home.”

The magazine also asked its readers to share their thoughts on whether Mahony should attend the conclave. Within hours, the magazine received hundreds of answers via its website, overwhelmingly asking the cardinal not to come to Rome.

“Cardinal Mahony should not only stay home from the conclave but retire to a life of prayer in a monastery,” read one typical comment. “It seems inconceivable to me that he doesn’t feel the moral duty to abstain from the conclave,” read another.

By Tuesday, Mahony’s case was on the front page of most of the main Italian newspapers, prompting the first reactions from within the Vatican.

In an interview with the daily La Repubblica, Cardinal Velasio De Paolis, the former head of the Vatican’s Prefecture for Economic Affairs and the pope’s envoy charged with reforming the disgraced Legionaries of Christ, said that “it will be up to (Mahony’s) conscience to decide whether to take part or not.”  [I think his conscience dictates otherwise.  If he can turn a blind eye to the abuses before, what makes him think he is not worthy of a spot in the Sistine Chapel?]

De Paolis stressed that there is no formal procedure to stop Mahony from attending the conclave. [There is!  The Pope can take away his cardinatial title thus Mahony's right to vote!]

“The common practice is to use persuasion. There is no more that can be done. Cardinal Mahony has the right and duty to take part,” he said. “This is a troubling situation but the rules must be followed.”  [Cardinal Ratzinger, then Cardinal Dean, advised then a very ill Cardinal Sin to stay home and not join the conclave.  Why not Mahony?  He is a lightning rod of controversy!]

According to De Paolis, only “someone with great authority” could advise “through a private intervention” that the retired Mahony not take part. [ So that would be the pope, the Cardinal Dean (Sodano) and the Cardinal Camerlengo (Bertone).]

On Tuesday, the Italian news agency ANSA quoted Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, a former No. 3 official at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as saying that “if his presence creates difficulties or embarrassment, then I think it could be opportune to renounce.” [Embarassment is an understatement.]

“But the decision is up to him and his conscience,” Girotti added.

La Caramella Buona, an Italian group for victims of sexual abuse, also called on Mahony not to attend the conclave.

But in a Monday tweet, Mahony signaled his resolve to come to Rome. “Count-down to the Papal Conclave has begun. Your prayers needed that we elect the best Pope for today and tomorrow’s Church,” Mahony wrote.  [He is calloused.  In Filipino "Kapal mo tsong!"]

The tweet sparked dozens of reactions online, with Twitter users calling his decision “shameful.” 

‘’Please recuse yourself for the good of the Church,” asked @bobshineproblem.

In a Monday post on his blog, Mahony also discussed the difficulty of “never rationalizing what is happening in our lives, never protesting misunderstandings, and never getting angry because of false accusations.”

“That is so difficult for us human beings. It is certainly difficult for me on my journey,” he added.

***

If it were difficult for him, then the humane thing to do is to follow the Pope's example.

Retire to a life of prayer and silence.....hidden from the world.

Well, not like the Pope, he has to face the wheels of justice.

Cardinal Mahony: Epitome of Incompetency

In the light of what was done to Cardinal Mahony by Archbishop Gomez of LA, I was planning to write a post about this until I read this post from a priest from LA.

So I though, well, what the heck!  He hit it right on the head!

Killer line:

Cardinal Mahony seems to have misunderstood the nature and identity of the Catholic priesthood. He seems to have managed the Church more as a civic organization than the Bride of Christ. And this is why even the Los Angeles Times finds his behavior indefensible. Everyone, even the Church’s enemies, expect the Catholic Church to act like the Catholic Church.

Even the secular media, who used to be his darling, is ganging up on him!

FYI, Cardinal Mahony is one of the major of a failure of appointments of Bl. John Paul when he was pope and how he just let this loose canon run wild.

He had more time criticizing Mother Angelica and went at great lengths to the Vatican, going office to office, finding a way to censure the cloistered nun of EWTN.

While he let the pedophile priest run wild preying on innocent children!

Take the red hat off of him and send him to a monastery!

No wonder most of his critics call him Cardinal Baloney.

Thanks to the liberal theology and attitude of Vatican II hijackers, we have this problem in the Church..............and we have Cardinal Mahony.


***

PS:  I know of a Filipino cardinal who.....................Never mind.

Liberal West is worried of my favorite cardinal

Why, oh why?...

Just because he wears traditional vestments?

Ha!


***


VATICAN CITY (RNS) When some American Catholics worry that the hierarchy is tilting toward the Republican Party, or taking the church back to the 19th century (or earlier), they often point to Cardinal Raymond Burke as Exhibit A.  [Anyone who is not the conventional or in this case, someone who would trifle their "right to be a brat" whining, expect the liberal Democrats to look someone from the Catholic Church....the conservatives that is.  Forget, Cardinal Roger Mahony.  He is a Democrat.  Ha!]

That's understandable, because love him or loathe him -- and few are on the fence -- Burke's many pronouncements on politics and the culture wars have given both fans and critics plenty of ammunition for their respective views.

Back when he was archbishop of St. Louis in 2004, for instance, Burke touched off a fierce debate by declaring that Catholic politicians such as John Kerry who support abortion rights should be denied Communion. Voters who supported them were in grave peril too, he added.  [Burke knows what he is talking about!  He is a canon lawyer!]

Burke doubled down on those views after Pope Benedict XVI appointed him to a top Vatican job in 2008, saying that under President Obama the Democratic party "risks transforming itself definitively into a 'party of death'." [Isn't it?] In 2009, Burke fueled another controversy when he said that the late Sen. Edward Kennedy should have been denied a church funeral for his support of abortion rights and gay rights.  [RIGHT!]

"They can't say anything about me that would surprise me," Burke said with a soft laugh when asked in a recent interview about the passionate reactions sparked by his public stands.

"To be honest with you, I'm the sort of person who would be very happy not to have to speak out. I'm not a person who by nature likes to do that. But I believe it's my obligation," [Do most of our priests and bishops know what those words mean?  Or being politically correct or ecumenical to the point of being relative is more important nowadays, huh?] said Burke, who is always affable and remains accessible to the media. "It's a responsibility that's been given to me. I try to do it, though certainly not perfectly."

The 63-year-old prelate -- in his workaday attire of black cassock with red piping and a scarlet sash with matching skullcap -- was speaking in his gilded offices on the upper floors of the 16th century Palazzo della Cancelleria, one of the most famous Renaissance palaces in Rome that now houses the Catholic Church's highest court.

The Apostolic Signatura handles canon law cases from around the world, from marriage annulments to parish closings; since 2008 Burke has effectively served as the chief justice of the church's supreme court. It's a platform that he has used to great effect -- and to the consternation of his critics.

Indeed, when Burke was called to Rome after just four tumultuous years in St. Louis, many suggested that he was getting "kicked upstairs" in order to get him out of the U.S. spotlight. A case of "promuovere per rimuovere," as the Italians say -- to remove through promotion.  [How I wish this happens to one guy!  And he ends up in an obscure Vatican dicastery where he cannot be seen on Tv anymore.  Try guessing.  Ha!]

But if that was the plan, it hasn't worked out so well.

In his four years in Rome, Burke has continued to speak his mind -- he is a favorite on the conservative Catholic speaking circuit in the U.S. -- while also becoming a player in Vatican politics in ways that extend his influence well beyond the occasional rhetorical broadside.

Benedict elevated Burke to cardinal in 2010, giving him a vote in a conclave that would elect the pontiff's successor, [no mention that he can become pope too?  Hmm...] and put him on the Congregation for Bishops, the Vatican body that vets candidates for bishops in the U.S. and around the world. [One name slipped his watch, though.  Ugh!] That gives Burke a key role in shaping the hierarchy for years to come, which he seems to be doing.

Vatican observers saw Burke's hand in the 2011 promotion of Archbishop Charles Chaput, whose conservatism closely tracks Burke's, from Denver to Philadelphia. And they say Burke was key in Oakland Bishop Salvatore Cordileone's recent move to San Francisco.  [Can we all say "Deo gratias!"?]

Blogger Rocco Palmo dubbed Cordileone's promotion the "Bombshell by the Bay" -- Cordileone is an outspoken conservative and leading supporter of California's Prop 8 banning gay marriage, and will now be archbishop of the nation's gay mecca. But he's also a longtime friend of Burke.

No wonder longtime Vaticanista Marco Tosatti anointed Burke as "the'great puppeteer' of American appointees" to the U.S. hierarchy.  [If that is the kind of puppeteer, then heck I will be a puppet!  Strap me up! Ha!]

Burke was also believed to be one of the instigators of the controversial Vatican crackdown on a major group of American nuns, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, who Rome viewed as straying too far from orthodoxy and spending too much time on social justice issues.

In the interview, the cardinal acknowledged that he was consulted about the LCWR takeover, but he argued that it was "logical" to seek his input given his long experience in the U.S. church. He also reiterated his view that the Vatican had every right to undertake the investigation, even as he stressed that he was not involved in carrying out the actual overhaul.

Burke said his opinion "is certainly heard" on a range of matters at the highest level of the Vatican, even if his views are not always followed. "I don't have any pretenses about being some powerful figure, no," he added. "But it is heard, and respectfully."

The cardinal also said that many American bishops naturally turn to him as "a friendly contact" in Rome who can advise them "on matters large and small," and that he tries to convey those views to his colleagues in the Vatican bureaucracy.

Yet whatever his success since coming to Rome, Burke's rise hasn't been without its stumbles.

Another of his U.S. proteges, Bishop Robert Finn of Missouri, was found guilty in September of covering up for a priest suspected of child abuse -- the first bishop ever convicted in the long history of the clergy abuse scandal. When asked to comment about Finn at a September meeting with journalists, Burke demurred. "It wouldn't be proper," he said.

Burke is also a leading advocate of a restoration of the church's older rites and traditions, like the Latin Mass, which he argues were heedlessly cast aside in the liberal "euphoria" after the reforms of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s.  [Liberal euphoria, love the term!  Like Hippie Revolution!  No wonder we had "Jesus Christ: Superstar". Aquarius!!!!]

But Burke has been celebrating so many old-style liturgies and donning the most ornate regalia -- long trains of watered silk, velvet gloves and elaborate brocades -- that several Vatican officials said he had been asked to "tone it down a bit."  [Did they ask Archbishop Piero Marini to tone down his theatrical Masses during JP2's time?  Nah.  But when it is something traditional, expect the inculturated maniacs to throw a hissy fit.]

Whether he will is another matter.

"The vestments, everything, are part of a tradition," Burke says in his defense. "We need to understand that and not just discard it and say, well, it was all just an ugly accretion."  [If anything old must be discarded......then away with those nutty old inculturated liturgists!!  Ha!  Cybercrime this dude!]

Burke also got into hot water in 2009 when he taped an interview for anti-abortion activist Randall Terry in which he chided his fellow bishops for not taking a harder line in denying Communion to pro-choice politicians or those who support gay marriage. Those bishops, he said, are "weakening the faith of everyone."  [Saying like it is!  Really love this cardinal!  My predictions of him being a cardinal under Pope Benedict XVI were right, y'all!]

Burke later apologized, but he has continued to press fellow bishops to speak out as strongly as he does. "If the shepherd isn't obedient, the flock easily gives way to confusion and error," he said during a 2010 speech to an anti-abortion group.

For Burke, the risks are too high to remain on the sidelines. Obama's presidency and the advancement of issues like gay marriage and abortion rights have made it imperative for Catholic bishops to speak up, he says, though he realizes that the president is ahead in the polls and could well win. "I don't know what would happen if that would be the case," he said, shaking his head.

But he said he has been encouraged that a growing number of bishops appear to be joining the campaign for religious freedom that has targeted White House policies on contraception coverage, because he believes that Christians in the U.S. could well face direct governmental persecution for their beliefs.

"These are definitive moments and the stakes are as high as you can get," Burke says. "That really pleases me, that more bishops are speaking out on their own."

In the end, that kind of activism by the bishops he helps appoint may be Raymond Burke's true legacy.

***

Well, the critics of Cardinal Burke would certainly be against his fashion style....

Blessing people like this...

Modeling a hat like this....

Dressing up for Mass like this....

Creating new deacons and priests like this....

Hanging with such friends such as these...

and this... (gotta put them in, ha!)

And thinking like...(How deep a scar would this leave on a Mr. Constitutionalist's coconut?)

Ha!  That was me talking.

They would protest if he does his job as a Catholic bishop.  If he speaks only what the Church teaches, the liberals and Modernists would react.

BUT!

They would not react if they see...

The Precious Blood placed in a wine goblet and pitcher to look like Kool-Aid from our favorite GULP Liturgical Abuser, who thankfully is not archbishop of Los Angeles anymore, Roger Cardinal Mahony...

They would not react if the bishop is dressed up for and offers Mass like this...

or hangs out with guys like these...

Yes the dang Masons were acting like they were co-consecrating.

and happily called to the altar.....with a female EMHC masking as a priestess...Ha!


DO WE HEAR ANYONE OF THOSE LIBERALS REACTING?

Nah....

Silence means "Yes"

Is LA Archbishop Gomez really orthodox?

Ever since Cardinal Roger Mahoney's retirement was quickly accepted by the Holy Father and the "shocker" of an appointment of Archbishop Jose Gomez as his co-adjutor archbishop, Catholic bloggers, like yours truly are very hopeful that this Opus Dei priest can bring back the "holy" to the Los Angeles Archdiocese.

But since sitting at the the throne of Los Angeles in March 2011, Archbishop Jose Gomez has not done
anything to arrest the dissent festival called Religious Education Congress.

Apart from the brazen disregard for liturgical laws, the REC is where theological dissenters spread their lies and heresies.  A group called Concerned Roman Catholics of America (CRCOA) sounded the alarm and concern for the seeming inaction of the reputed orthodox archbishop against this event.


The CRCOA mentioned the following:

 The 185 REC speakers include:

A priest who's said he's "not anti-choice," has publicly discussed his genitals, and has criticized the idea that truth is superior to dissent.

A priest who says the Church needs "public models" of "healthy gay priests for Catholics to reflect on," to counter "the stereotype of the gay priest as child abuser."

A professor who subtly undermines Church teachings on papal authority, sodomy, contraception and women's ordination.

A nun who's taught that "ordinary genital self-touch can be very important" for children.

A laicized priest who wants not only women priests but also women bishops.

This will be the second year that the REC will be held under the leadership of Archbishop Gomez and he still has not undone what Mahoney left behind.

Questions are:  Is Gomez really the archbishop running the archdiocese?  Is Mahoney's hand still in this event?

My dear People of God, the speakers deliver lessons openly challenging the dogmas of the Church.  And we bring in our very own Catholics to listen to their filth.

What do we do?  Well, what will Archbishop Gomez do about this?

Is he really orthodox, or more of a comformist?

MAHONY OFFICIALLY GONE!

Archbishop Gomez, as if leading Cardinal Mahony to the door

Los Angeles, Calif., Feb 28, 2011 / 02:21 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- With the retirement of Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, Archbishop Jose H. Gomez has taken over leadership of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, the largest in the United States.

“L.A. is home for me now,” the Mexican-born archbishop told the cardinal and the assembled worshipers at a Mass marking the transition of leadership on Feb. 27. “I pray that I will be worthy of continuing the work that you have begun here.”[Rather, fixing the whole mess Mahony left behind!]

Before a crowd of 3,500 faithful at Los Angeles' Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, [Taj Mahony!] Cardinal Mahony ceremonially passed on his crozier to Archbishop Gomez, investing him with the traditional staff that symbolizes the leadership of the local bishop. On that same day, his 75th birthday, the cardinal submitted his resignation in a faxed letter to Pope Benedict XVI. [He did not send the actual letter?]

On Sunday, March 6, one week after the transition, Archbishop Gomez will celebrate his inaugural Mass as Archbishop of Los Angeles. [This we have to watch out for!  I am hoping that I won't see the vestal virgin nuns and the liturgical dancers, the bongo drums and the...you get the picture.]

At the transition Mass, Archbishop Gomez graciously thanked the cardinal for his leadership of the archdiocese over the course of 26 years. Cardinal Mahony's legacy, he said, is “a Church that radiates the love of God and the truth of the Gospel.” [Uhm...not really.  He did a lot of damage to the Church by twisting the truth of the Gospel.]

“He has shown us what Christ wants his Church to be – a communion of cultures and a communion of saints, one family of God drawn from every country, race, and language.” The archbishop said that Cardinal Mahony “has helped us open our hearts, to love God and to love our brothers and sisters.” [Uhm...]

As the largest archdiocese in the country, Los Angeles is home to more than 5 million Catholics, 70 percent of whom are Hispanic. Archbishop Gomez, who was born in the Mexican city of Monterrey and later became a U.S. citizen, will be the first Hispanic Archbishop of Los Angeles. [And an Opus Dei!]

He told the crowd that he hoped to continue Cardinal Mahony's work by inviting people of all backgrounds to participate in the life of the Church. [Uhm...]

“I am inspired by his love for the immigrant, for the strangers in our midst,” [that I agree with.] Archbishop Gomez said. “I am challenged by his call for us to live the Gospel – to find Christ among the poor, to love the immigrant as our neighbor and our friend.”

Archbishop Gomez also spoke of the centrality of the priesthood to his own life, and the life of the Church.
“Cardinal Mahony knows it. Our brother priests know it,” he reflected. “To be his priests, this becomes the reason why we live. To bring Jesus to people, and to bring people to Jesus.” [Which is explicitly expressed in the Mass, in Holy Confession and in the other Sacraments.  That is the power of Holy Orders!]

“A priest is a priest forever,” Archbishop Gomez pointed out. “And a good bishop never forgets that he is, first of all, a priest.” He told the crowd that Cardinal Mahony was “now able to return to full time priestly ministry.” [He is going to hold more Religious Education Congress?]

“And that is such a beautiful thing – to be a priest,” Los Angeles' new archbishop noted.

While returning to priestly ministry on a smaller scale, Cardinal Mahony will be working on the issue of immigration. He wrote recently that he was “encouraged by the prospects of helping these silent millions in our midst” during his retirement.

***

Hope he does not spread the Religious Education Congress mess all over!

Now sing it with me...

Na na na na...

Na na na na...

Hey, hey!  Goodbye!

Catholophobia in Belgium

Belgian police admitted to this: 

"the tombs of Cardinals Suenens and Van Roey were drilled and a camera pushed in, apparently to see whether there were any hidden documents" linked to the paedophilia claims concerning Catholic clergy.

Read more of this audacity here.

***

On a side note, is this guy the head of the Belgian Police?

Why not investigate these two?  If there are two people who should be investigated thoroughly, these are the two!  We are giving them up to you!

Ok, I get the point of the Belgian police. You have a search warrant. But does it involve opening a tomb?!?!

Idiots...

Willing agents of the devil?

From zenit.org

***

Editors of the New York Times should realize that they were “used” by a lawyer trying to sue the Vatican, Catholic commentator Scott P. Richert remarked in a recent lecture. Examining instances of biased reporting and manipulation of the media, he also discussed the causes of clerical sexual abuse and Pope Benedict’s efforts against it.

Richert, editor of both Chronicles Magazine and the About.com GuideSite to Catholicism, on June 3 delivered a lecture at the Illinois-based Rockford Institute on the topic “Clerical Sexual Abuse: Separating Fact, Fiction, and Anti-Catholic Bias.” [Great title!]

An excerpt of his lecture, posted on YouTube, shows Richert exposing the “dirty little secret” that the New York Times’ coverage of the Fr. Lawrence Murphy abuse case had its source in Jeffrey Anderson.

Anderson, who directed Times reporter Laurie Goodstein to his documentation on the story, is the “most famous” of the sexual abuse attorneys and has made at least $60 million off such cases. [Judas Iscariot went to law school!  And he is still fighting for justice and the oppressed! Wow...]

“Unfortunately for him, he’s running out of clients,” Richert said. Less than a month after Goodstein’s article, he filed suit against the Vatican and Pope Benedict XVI, using the Fr. Murphy case as its basis.

The New York Times attempted to connect the Pope to the case, claiming he “declined to defrock” the priest who abused dozens of deaf school children.

Critics including Richert pointed out that the documentation used by the Times’ story in fact exonerated Pope Benedict and showed how the Archdiocese of Milwaukee [headed by that sorry excuse for a Benedictine, for a priest, for a bishop and archbishop, Rembert Weakland who confessed to being a homosexual and who used church money to support his gay lifestyle and his lover!  He should be the one that the New York Times is going after!]  and secular authorities bore responsibility for inaction in the case.

Notoriously, one of the source documents about a key meeting between archdiocesan and Vatican officials was poorly translated from Italian using a computer program. [Google translate!  That's a Peabody for you there! Hah!] This distorted or left out key information about the Vatican’s response to the case.

“If the editors of the New York Times are not complete and utter morons, they have to realize that they were used,” Richert commented. [I think they are both! Hah!]

In an article at About.com, he noted that the Times itself has reported that Laurie Goodstein was not working on the Fr. Murphy case when Anderson gave her the documents. In Richert’s view, this calls into question her claim her article was not done “at the instigation of lawyers.” [Oh really?]

In his Rockford Institute lecture, Richert cited Vatican attorney Jeffrey Lena’s comment that Anderson “shows how you can both create a media frenzy and then capitalize on it.”

He’s “very, very good at creating intense media interest and then shaping a narrative for the press to write their stories around,” Lena continued, saying Anderson “serves these media events up like nice little meals for reporters to chow down on. And they do.”

Richert discussed his lecture in an interview with Stephanie Block, founder of the Catholic Media Coalition, at her blog Orate Fratres.

He said that the campaign against the Church is motivated both by the greediness of “lawyers who are running out of clients” and by the hatred of Pope Benedict XVI for really believing what the Catholic Church teaches. [And because Pope Benedict is leading the charge against massive secularism, abortion, gay marriage!]

As one instance of bias, he noted that the final questions of a New York Times / CBS News poll read “like push polling” and used the questions to try to change attitudes rather than measure them.

The most egregious example, in his view, was a question that asked whether sexual abuse of children and teenagers is “a more common problem in the Catholic Church than it is in other walks of life, or is it just as common a problem in other walks of life?” [Too leading.  That is journalistic objectivity for you folks!]  This missed alternative responses like the view that abuse is less common in the Catholic Church, or that abuse is more common in other walks of life.

Explaining how clerical sexual abuse became such a problem, Richert said that one particular cohort of priests, born between 1925 and ordained between 1950 and 1975, were responsible for “the bulk of the crisis,” as were most bishops who transferred accused priests and covered up allegations.

“By 1980, they had begun to retire or die, and by 2002, most of them were no longer active priests,” he told Block.

He speculated that too many in the Church began to regard the priesthood as a profession or occupation [and in some cases, regretably though, as a way for a better chance at life.] rather than as a vocation. Some bishops then began to ordain men to the priesthood who “weren’t fit to be husbands and fathers,” Richert said, quoting Byzantine Catholic priest Fr. Thomas Loya.

Similarly, some bishops began to treat grave sin as a medical or physical problem and not a “metaphysical” one. [yeah like a kid gets possessed and they treat it as a psychological disorder.]

Richert explained that before he became Pope, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger successfully lobbied to have responsibility for cases of sexual abuse transferred from the Roman Rota to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). [TRUE!] Since April 2001, the CDF has investigated over 3,000 abuse cases and 85 percent of those cases brought to canonical trial have resulted in convictions. [And the mainstream media did not even bother to publish this.]

Despite the objections of other prominent Vatican officials, [like Cardinal Sodano who up to now, reportedly, refused to leave his office in the Vatican even though he is not Cardinal Secretary of State anymore.] Cardinal Ratzinger also ordered the investigation of Fr. Marcel Maciel, the powerful founder of the Legion of Christ who faced many allegations of sexual abuse. This investigation resulted in the priest’s removal from ministry and his exile to a monastery. [who died refusing Sacramental Confession!]

The future Pope Benedict also helped the U.S. bishops develop their charter to protect young people and put into place “strict new rules” to prevent the admission to the priesthood of both practicing homosexuals and those with homosexual tendencies. Since over two-thirds of U.S. priest abuse cases from 1950 to 2002 involved adolescent males, Richert contended, they are more accurately described as homosexual acts rather than pedophilia. [Still nothing from NYT!]

Questioning the motives of groups like the Survivors’ Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) and Voice of the Faithful (VOTF), he noted that both oppose the ban on homosexuals in the priesthood, both call for an end to clerical celibacy, and SNAP in particular has agitated for women priests. [Wolves in sheeps clothing!  And you think they are the victims?  Think again.  They are not only after the money of the Church but they are also after the total destruction of the Catholic Church!]  According to Richert, SNAP has received “significant funding” from lawyers [I hope he gives names.] who have sued the Church.

Richert’s lecture is available for purchase at the Rockford Institute website, www.rockfordinstitute.org.

***

Now the issue is clear.

Attorney's for the victims are after the money, not after justice.

NYT and SNAP are after the pope and the Catholic Church because of her doctrines.

If these groups are really after justice, why not go after Cardinal Mahony and Abp. Weakland?  Apparently, these agents of evil do not want to touch these two men because:

1.  Mahony is a liberal loved by liberal minded dissident Catholics, and non Catholics who hate the Catholic Church.

2.  Weakland is a homosexual and a disgrace to the Church for how he destroyed the liturgical heritage of his cathedral in Milwaukee and how he lived an active homosexual life while as archbishop, even using the money collected every at every church in his archdiocese to support and shut his lover up.

And both men transferred offending priests, from one parish to another...

Yet the NYT and SNAP did not vent their energies against them, instead focusing their aim, like a laser beam, on Pope Benedict.

And they call Catholics bigots.  Yeah, right.

Liturgical Query: Should a coadjutor sit on the cathedra?

I watched this CNA video on YouTube of the Mass welcoming or officially starting the ministry of Archdiocese of Los Angeles coadjutor archbishop Jose Gomez.  He was led by Cardinal Roger Mahony (without the 'e' as Michael corrected me.) to sit on the cathedra even if he has not formally taken possession of the archdiocese.  In principle, he does since he is co-coadjutor or co-ruler of the archdiocese.

Archbishop Gomez seated on the LA Cathedra.  Cardinal Mahony is to the left vested in the pallium.  Cardinal William Levada is immediately to the right of Archbishop Gomez.

I am not sure this is liturgically correct.  Usually, the Ordinary gets to possess his diocese during the Mass of Installation where he is given the crozier and is seated on his cathedra, obviously in his Cathedral.

I once read that a cardinal enjoys the right to sit in the cathedra of any bishop if he so decides to sit during the Mass which he celebrates.  A papal legate also enjoys this privilege.  A metropolitan archbishop, once he receives his pallium, meaning he has received his authority to govern over his metropolitan province, can sit on the cathedra of his suffragan diocese.

Only the pope can sit on the cathedra of any Roman Catholic bishop without seeking the permission of the bishop, accounting for his universal jurisdiction as shown on the photo below.  The arms on the cathedra are those of New York Archbishop-Emeritus Edward Cardinal Egan

Here is the video I mentioned above.